Unique Oregon Law on Wire Service Commissions

[anytimeflowers]

I applaud all your efforts and can see these issues finally gaining some traction.

Exactly so Keith, Doug, and any other Oregon REAL FLORISTS. I deplore government in my business but on a few things like this effort there clearly is nothing else that CAN be done.

I just hope that the task force takes into consideration the points that Cathy mentioned. The most troubling part of the vetoed law was that it put a cap on commission and disregarded the real issue of the service charges. IMO, that is where the cap should be. It would also be wise to say that a SEPARATE DELIVERY FEE as a separate line or add-on must accompany an order. That would give real transparency.

It is my understanding that the deceptive advertising law was included with the failed law, is that correct? If so, I would also urge those preparing the bill/law would consider making them separate laws. If one fails, one could still pass into law for SOME regulation.

Just my two cents. I'm hoping that other states will follow your example. Kudos to you.

Doug. You said you have mixed feelings about this but you only listed the cons. Care to share your pros?

 

[Doug Munro]

Exactly so Keith, Doug, and any other Oregon REAL FLORISTS. I deplore government in my business but on a few things like this effort there clearly is nothing else that CAN be done.

I just hope that the task force takes into consideration the points that Cathy mentioned. The most troubling part of the vetoed law was that it put a cap on commission and disregarded the real issue of the service charges. IMO, that is where the cap should be. It would also be wise to say that a SEPARATE DELIVERY FEE as a separate line or add-on must accompany an order. That would give real transparency.

It is my understanding that the deceptive advertising law was included with the failed law, is that correct? If so, I would also urge those preparing the bill/law would consider making them separate laws. If one fails, one could still pass into law for SOME regulation.

Just my two cents. I'm hoping that other states will follow your example. Kudos to you.

Doug. You said you have mixed feelings about this but you only listed the cons. Care to share your pros?

Linda,

Once the door opens for government regulating business there is little that can be done to stop it. America has always been known as the land of free enterprise, in fact for many years it was one of your countries claims to fame. The problem with building legislation to "protect" special interest groups (in this case the florist) is that every special interest group feels their own reasoning and cause is an important and just one.

As for the real issue being "service charges" and the need for government to address this, I totally disagree. Ask a WS or OG why they need a service charge and their answer is simple " they need it to cover costs and ensure and ensure a profitable business (or something similar). So, should we ask the government to evaluate what are fair operating costs, or better yet what is a reasonable profit for a business to achieve. How would you feel as a business if the government set a cap on your local delivery fee ignoring the actual costs with the reasoning that a lower delivery fee was in the best interests of the consumer.

As for deceptive advertising, that is another issue and should be dealt with in any industry. However how much do you legislate, in our business would substitutions be allowed?

As for my mixed feelings, as an individual business person I can see no up side to government legislating margins or costs. We have seen several attempts at it here in Canada and the end result is consistently disaster., for both consumer and business. Even the issue of legislating payday loans makes an insulting assumption, that the average taxpayer is too naive to be responsible for their own financial dealings and that the government MUST protect them (babysit them) from their own ignorance. Again, the problem here is that not allowing high interest rates is something that the government know garners support (and votes). Yet in a "free" country should not an individual be allowed to decide if they are willing to pay a higher rate of interest.

So in our industry, are fulfillers too naive to simply refuse orders that will cost them money and if so must the government babysit them too.

I am a firm believer that business in general should be left alone to conduct business(assuming no criminal acts are involved) and that in every transactions all parties involved must take some personal responsibility for their decisions.

 

[KABERS]

I really don't have any faith in our government regulating anything. Too much greed and corruption. But when my state is constantly complaining about no money, it drives me insane that dog's don't pay sales tax here. If they claim being here then they should be subject to every tax I pay for being here. I know dream on.

 

[anytimeflowers]

Doug, I agree on principle everything you have outlined.

For many years I asked florist's "Why?". Why do you belong to the wire service if it's so horrible? The answer was always the same, "We need the sales." I think part of this problem is righting itself as florists who only relied on wired in orders for the majority of their "sales" have closed their doors.

You ask if fulfillers are too naive to simply refuse orders that will cost them money. IMO, any gathered order is going to cost more than the average filler can afford. Incremental income does not cover rising fixed expenses and florists DO know this, it has just taken Oregon to rise to the challenge.

Florists apparently WANT that incremental income, and you certainly want them to continue filling your orders. As in any free market, there HAS to be some governance though. That governance would traditionally fall on the wire services, who are the facilitator between you and the filler.

Unfortunately, the wire services have only governed the filler, and let the gatherers play at will with little or no interference. We can take this right back to merry old England when there were titled gentry (I know, there still are), who owned large tracts of land. They hired overseers to manage that land, and the land was farmed by tenants. Do you honestly suggest that the tenants should have just gone off to buy their own piece of land to farm? I know to my mind that would be ideal but the reality is they could not afford to or they would have. Would you call that naivety or survival?

It's the same as unions. I do not care for unions myself, and would not take a job where I had to belong to one or not work in my field. However, at the time they were conceived of, they were very necessary and did their job. They brought fairness and safety to those who work for others. As with most things, instead of going away after doing the job, unions grew into their own money-hungry monsters. (jmo, that opinion isn't going away) It would not have been necessary if those employers would have treated their workers fairly to begin with.

That's why I would favor a slightly different approach to laws seeking to govern this issue. Ideal to me would be for every order to be spelled out to the consumer in separate lines on their invoice. Flowers -$29.99, florist delivery $10, facilitator service fee, whatever. They can charge $100 service charge for all I care, doesn't need a cap at all. But at least the consumer knows exactly what they are paying for in each part of the transaction. I would have liked to see the wire services deal with this in house, but they play the same game in deceit. Somebody has to step in for the tenant and clearly the Lord and the overseer are only about themselves. It's too bad.

 

[secretgarden]

How would you feel as a business if the government set a cap on your local delivery fee ignoring the actual costs with the reasoning that a lower delivery fee was in the best interests of the consumer.

The funny thing is the Wire Services already do this and the fillers put up with it.

As far as America being "free enterprise", not so much. There are rules and regulations in place in every sector to protect the consumer. As a whole people are not that smart. For example, McDonalds being sued for someone spilling hot coffee on their leg... oh I didn't know it would be that hot. So now warning labels on everything. Fast food is not good for you, lets show the people, now you must put your calorie count on the menu. These are just a few examples that I can think of and the list goes on and on. Licenses, inspections, and so forth to protect the people. Sometimes it is silly nonsense other times it makes sense.

I agree I would not want the government putting a cap on what we charge for things. But I do not try to hide it in small print or fees. I tell the customer that rose is xxx and that stargazer is xxx.

So all in all I too have some mixed feelings but until I come up with a better plan I will enjoy watching the wire services squirm a little. I do believe though that the deceptive advertising law is 100% on the mark. I really want to see this in every state. Not just for florists but for small mom and pop shops of all kinds.